Fatigue Feedback (dev branch)

[Nikoteen 24]

So you want BIS to create a fatigue system when they can't even create one 1 that pleases us? Don't think so.

 

Look, I suppose you and me want more or less the same fatigue system... My point was, as it's difficult to step back from production decision, to let us the choice to keep the old system in a simple way (not mod).

But actually I also really like the idea of Cenwulf :

 

 

1. Introduce a number of distinct difficulty settings for the current fatigue system. I've listed 3 below by way of example:

None: no weight based fatigue system, jog and sprint to your heart's content.

Casual: the same fatigue system but more lenient. 50% reduction of fatigue build-up from all actions. [or introduce the new stamina system here]

Realism: the current fatigue system in all it's glory.

Make these settings configurable as a simple drop down in the difficulty settings menu for single player. Make it so the fatigue setting is enforced server side but make the current setting of any serve is clearly visible from the server browser and even filterable.

[bumgie 49]

 

Hi guys,

 

We removed fatigue and added sprint bar like all the other gamez haz.

Happy Halloween Dayz!

 

 

[machineabuse 11]

• Aiming through scopes disables recovery (looking through optics == holding breath?)!

I must admit I am extremely annoyed by this. I can't even begin to imagine what the rationale for this design decision could possibly be especially because the practical expression of this involves zero actual movement of the weapon, just bringing the camera to the sights.

Now, I'm in no way saying that shouldering a weapon isn't tiring, but shouldering it up to your eye shouldn't be any more tiring than shouldering it at all, which is what the game makes the player do all the time anyway.

This is rather disappointing considering that the previous iteration of the fatigue system was quite excellent. The only thing I like about this new system is that stamina is visible in the UI. The rest feels like it fell off the back of an Elder Scrolls game.

 

Aside from that, I too will echo the thoughts of what seems to be the majority in this discussion and say what the game had before was much better.

[iratus 71]

I don't normally post here, but I have been playing with the new fatigue system on dev branch for a day or two now and would like to voice my opinion. 

 

First, I like the visual indicator. It's great to see how much gear you are carrying, and how much you are able to sprint.

 

With that said, I really REALLY hope they find some way to keep the old system in the game. When the old system first came out, it sparked quite the uproar in the community.  But, over time I have (and I assume a lot of people have as well) come to love the 'old' system. It was highly dynamic, and made a TON of sense once a simple concept is understood: Carry more gear and you won't be as quick/agile.  The whole dynamic of the fatigue system adds so much to immersion, that I sorely miss in Dev ATM. Wether I can sprint very far or not does not produce any immersion (for me) like the old system in which I would always think to myself about how to approach the situation: Terrain, Gear, Tactics, Distance, Mobility, etc...

 

While playing with the new stamina system, it entered my mind while on the attack running up a hill with a full loadout "Huh, I am not tired at all."  The whole dynamic just was no longer there.  Terrain, gear weight, distance to my targets. I found myself no longer thinking about any of it, and in the heat of battle (on DEV w/ Stamina) I find myself aching, wishing my avatar was out of breath, unable to make that quick getaway due to circumstance, to make the situation just that much more immersive and entertaining like it has been, but that wasn't the case.

 

How can I script this back? Is there a button I can click in Eden or a difficulty option to switch? Otherwise, this just really kinda killed a huge immersion aspect of the game for me. 

 

 

This is pretty much what I experienced too. Since fatigue is only reduced by sprinting, loadout weight becomes almost a non-factor in my eyes: Besides from impatience (wanting to reach a place 5 seconds earlyer) there is rarely ever a real need to sprint. And in those cases where there is one, it's mostly "sprint 5 seconds to the nearest cover", so one could carry a substantial load and still achieve that. There is no more reason to go for a light loadout, medium to heavy is in all but the rarest instances the better choice. The terrain ist a non-factor too when using the new system. This reduces the amount of tactical thinking during travel time. Since traveling is low intensity anyways reducing the ammount of things players have to consider may make traveling "more boring". ("boringly long travel times" migth be one of the reasons for the overhaul of the system in the first place).

Also the new fatigue system is so much simpler than almost any other mechanic in the game that it does not fit compared to the rest of the game.

 

 

I guess BiS received a lot of feedback from people who had their difficulties with the old system - otherwise there would be no reason for them to invest time and energy to basicaly do a 180° turn from what they did with the last stamina upgrade (a.k.a. the old system). But the problem was not the old system (nor people beimg "dumb casuals/COD Kiddies" btw): Most First person shooters out there use the simple, old stamina-bar mechanic where one can sprint draining their stamina bar until it's empty. There are usually no other actions that drain the stamina bar (even exessive jumping in full body armour does not affect it :P ). That's what most players are have become used to within the last ten or so years. As we all know the "old" Arma3-Stamina system is different. Many things affect your stamina and how fast it regenerates and low stamina has way more consequences than simply denying you the ability to sprint. There is no "stamina bar", one only gets rather suptle feedback trough breathing noises. If they are not aware of that feedback for some reason (e.g. listening to music/a stream in the background, not being used to have to use "Mk 1 ears" in games at all) they may never learn how stamina in Arma3 works and thus never be able to deal with it properly. They will get into situations where they first exhaust themselves for no reason without them noticing it. Then they will fail in combat due to heavy breathing and not know why they where exhusted. They will think something along the lines of "i've been rekkt so hard AGAIN! WHY?! Usually I pwn in FPS-games, so it can't be me. It has to be the game's fault!". More/clearer feedback would prevent that from happening.

Now i am aware there are tutorials for stamina in the bootcamp campaign, but not every one has played them (8.8% have the bootcamp acievement on Steam - that's not completely acurate I know, but it gives a general idea). I think putting in the new visual indicator would have helped most of those people to understand the "old" stamina system to a degree where they could have had fun with it.

[BlackAlpha 10]

You can now literally carry a heavy AT launcher, a big sniper rifle with loads of ammo, a big vest/armor and a bunch of other stuff and you won't get penalized for it. Running, having a ridiculous amount of gear on you, running up hills, jumping, etc will not make you tired at all.

 

I understand that BIS wants the game to be more accessible for the average COD/Battlefield player, but what about your hardcore fans? Could you please at least give us the option to toggle between the current fatigue system and the new one?

[Roddis 27]

I have downloaded first time the dev-branch only to verify this new system and, OMG, what is the sense of it?

 

I think i can understand that the main reason for this is to go much close to the Wasteland/Life (ps. what the sense of arma 3 merged with Sims i can't figure out...bah!!!) desiderata.

 

But they can disable fatigue at all.

They, IMO, want to run and run and run and fire. They don't want to run a little then jogging then run a little more, for more having to remember to avoid aiming trough the scope!!! 

 

And the like me (in search of as much as realism possible) want to run, get fatigue, get bad aim, stand and restore, maybe drop out the AT or some stuff to sprint to a cover, find a car to go faster, if not save and exit. 

 

You are about to disappointing both IMO.

 

Ps. an UI for the current system is instead desiderable

[bad benson 1733]

so does it only limit sprinting? not fast crawl and any other high intensity movements?

[Greenfist 1863]

so does it only limit sprinting? not fast crawl and any other high intensity movements?

All movement when you press sprint key i.e. sprint & fast crawl.

[-Coulum- 35]

All movement when you press sprint key i.e. sprint & fast crawl.

And Nothing else. Regardless of what you carry.

 

This is pretty much what I experienced too. Since fatigue is only reduced by sprinting, loadout weight becomes almost a non-factor in my eyes: Besides from impatience (wanting to reach a place 5 seconds earlyer) there is rarely ever a real need to sprint. And in those cases where there is one, it's mostly "sprint 5 seconds to the nearest cover", so one could carry a substantial load and still achieve that. There is no more reason to go for a light loadout, medium to heavy is in all but the rarest instances the better choice. The terrain ist a non-factor too when using the new system. This reduces the amount of tactical thinking during travel time. Since traveling is low intensity anyways reducing the ammount of things players have to consider may make traveling "more boring". ("boringly long travel times" migth be one of the reasons for the overhaul of the system in the first place).

Also the new fatigue system is so much simpler than almost any other mechanic in the game that it does not fit compared to the rest of the game.

 

Pretty much the feeling I get when I am playing now. Your character simply doesn't get tired. Irregardless of the situation. The weapon sway due to non sprinting action is pretty much negligible. Very moderate, and can't seem to build it up to last more than 15 seconds even after 10km jog 95% encumbered, running up hills... gear, terrain, pathfinding, pace, planning etc. None of it really matters anymore. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you need to sprint more than 5 or so seconds your probably dead anyways. So the "heavy gear limits ones ability to sprint long periods" does shit all to impact gameplay. 

 

Absolute garbage compared to fatigue. Except for the stamina bar. When did BI change from: try to make deep gameplay accessible - easy to learn difficult to master... to straight up dumbing their game down. And there is no denying that stamina is extremely dumbed down. Just compare fatigue oprep to the stamina oprep. Which one sounds more interesting with more depth? Even the less noticed addition of "more defined hit impacts" in the latest devbranch to "spot if you a hit target better". BI you're taking away the originality of Arma and turning it into another generic shooter with a big map... Is that what you want?! Before this I didn't think so. Now I see no other explanation... 

[royaltyinexile 175]

Even the less noticed addition of "more defined hit impacts" in the latest devbranch to "spot if you a hit target better". BI you're taking away the originality of Arma and turning it into another generic shooter with a big map... Is that what you want?! Before this I didn't think so. Now I see no other explanation... 

Just wanted to share a quick note about this one. Part of the motivation for adding more feedback to engaging targets relates to some of the inherent limitations we face. During the Apex pre-production phase, we asked ourselves if it would be feasible to create a more advanced system, where successfully engaged target could, for example, be knocked down.

 

Unfortunately, our animation system, together with a number of other related factors, wasn't able to support this. We had to consider other methods. Particle effects linked to the calibre of the round are a fairly robust, intuitive, compromise (although players should be able to disable these in the game options if it's not to their taste).

 

We asked this question because we felt our existing solution both failed to adequately represent its real-life analogue, and to meet our design goal of letting players know when their shots connect. Indeed, the fact we have large terrains (and, therein, potentially large engagement distances) makes it more important to offer this type of feedback.

 

While I don't think it's pandering to a 'casual audience' to reach that conclusion, I also recognise it's not up to players to care about the constraints of our animation technology. We'll take that hit (*cloud of blood spawns*). I could go on about everything else happening under the hood when a target is struck (recently added dynamic aiming error, etc), but this topic is about fatigue feedback, and I've derailed things for quite long enough. :)

 

Your character simply doesn't get tired. Irregardless of the situation. The weapon sway due to non sprinting action is pretty much negligible. Very moderate, and can't seem to build it up to last more than 15 seconds even after 10km jog 95% encumbered, running up hills... gear, terrain, pathfinding, pace, planning etc.

 

Although I'll try to leave additional feedback to the chaps handling the feature, I'll note my perspective briefly, which relates to your above criticisms (suffice to say, thanks for the feedback). I think it's not quite clear enough that the new system has been released to Dev-Branch at an early stage. The team felt that, on balance, publishing the system 'in the wild' was the best route. It's fair to say that a number of aspects (recovery conditions, rates of decay, sway duties, etc). can - and should - be improved.

 

Ultimately, we have to compare the performance of the system against our originally stated design goals. In my view, if our end goal is to create a mechanic that:

1. Encourages players to consider their loadout
2. Asks players to plan their movement
3. Rewards players that make objectively better choices
4. Prohibits players from selecting unrealistic loadouts
5. Is transparent and comprehensible for players

Then, bluntly put - in its current, fresh-out-the-oven incarnation - it fails to satisfactorily meet a number of those criteria. We must ask how it fails to meet them satisfactorily, and identify things to add, change, or remove.

 

Lastly, and it's Sunday, and it's late, so bear with me, I want to offer some sort of note of hope: although next week is going to be long and stressful and in large parts smothered in rage, we have some truly dedicated designers that will be doing little else than listening to feedback, making plans, and implementing improvements.

 

This is certainly one of those topic that incites a lot of passion, which speaks to the dedication of the community and devs alike, but it's one I hope that can be conducted with civility and patience. Thanks again to all for sharing their views so far.

 

 

Best,

RiE

[en3x 209]

I might miss something but system impacts on your sprint - For me playing in SP or vannila MP gamemods sprint impact gameplay experience

in particular situation which is when I need to sprint for cover under fire - I need those 5 seconds or I'm usually dead.Because of that I fail to

see how tweaking recovery conditions, rates of decay, sway duties would make any impact on my loadout weight, route planning, weapon choosing, pacing, weapon position...

[Roddis 27]

1. Encourages players to consider their loadout

Asks players to plan their movement

Rewards players that make objectively better choices

Prohibits players from selecting unrealistic loadouts

Is transparent and comprehensible for players

 

{1, 2, 3, 4} -> Fatigue system

 

5 -> Fatigue + sort of Ui bar

 

IMO

 

Please leave Arma different of other...

[froggyluv 2136]

 

 

Ultimately, we have to compare the performance of the system against our originally stated design goals. In my view, if our end goal is to create a mechanic that:

1. Encourages players to consider their loadout
2. Asks players to plan their movement
3. Rewards players that make objectively better choices
4. Prohibits players from selecting unrealistic loadouts
5. Is transparent and comprehensible for players

Then, bluntly put - in its current, fresh-out-the-oven incarnation - it fails to satisfactorily meet a number of those criteria. We must ask how it fails to meet them satisfactorily, and identify things to add, change, or remove.

 

 

 Besides 5 the rest could easily be mistaken for one of our pleas. And as far as 5 goes really fail to see what was difficult about it -its too heavy plan your gear and route accordingly. Really the only ones I see complaining our run and gunners and thats fine but they'll complain about well, anything really that comes between their mouse and their desired pixel.

 

 OT: So the new blood is just bigger, brighter puffs of red? Thats disappointing if true because frankly the old blood squirts from OFPEC/SNKMAN still look better  and more like liquid. Cant Physx add some nice red particle effects that stain walls and drip? As far as animations why is it impossible to make guys just Fall when TPW and others have achieved a pretty nice result. Heck solus got guys to fall on their ass when shot quite literally in Arma 1.

 

 Dont get me wrong, I really appreciate the many, many improvements to Arma especially in the last 6months -its nothing short of an amazing game. But please, please allow us our realism if only an option.

[ceeeb 147]

...

Ultimately, we have to compare the performance of the system against our originally stated design goals. In my view, if our end goal is to create a mechanic that:

1. Encourages players to consider their loadout
2. Asks players to plan their movement
3. Rewards players that make objectively better choices
4. Prohibits players from selecting unrealistic loadouts
5. Is transparent and comprehensible for players

...

 

How about providing a visual indication of the implications of the load carried directly on the inventory screen? Players conditioned to games aren't easily able to extend the real world implications of weight carried, terrain slope, stance, etc to in game fatigue/stamina.

When a new player sees the load bar on the inventory screen at half full, they assume they can carry twice as much as they currently do without implication, as in most games.

Maybe use colours for the bar? Or have notches on the bar indicating light, normal, heavy, overloaded states? Or a hare/tortoise icon? etc,etc.

[ppitm 43]

So what the fuck reason do I have not to just go tactical pace everywhere, and run across the entire map looking down the sights of my MMG?

 

The only reason not to use tactical pace with my MMG, is that sometimes I'll need to pause and fire off 4 rounds from my Titan Compact.

 

Balls.

[Beagle 684]

I don't see what is wrong with the current 1.52 fatigue system. It feels rather natural. It made me me consider not to walk 5km with a battle rifle, laucher 4 rockets and lots of stuff but use a vehicle instead and walk the last 1km in a rather slow pace. Just the way I remember it from my service time. I can't recal a single moment when I ran more then 100m with a 7.62mm MG. But I can remeber an instance when Itumbled and could not get up for a minute with all that stuff attached to me and that 11kg of MG still in my neck.

 

Anything else is just a way back to ArmA II and makes ArmA II once again more attractive bacause it was mainly the load and stamina systems that made ArmA III feel better to me to simulate Infantry combat.

[tpw 2315]

After playing around with stamina for a while I sort of get the feeling that it's a solution in search of a problem. 

 

My major problem with the new system is that heavily laden units can now jog from one end of Altis to the other without any issues. If jogging reduced stamina at say 20% the rate of sprinting then the whole thing would feel a little bit less arcadish.

[iratus 71]

Although I'll try to leave additional feedback to the chaps handling the feature, I'll note my perspective briefly, which relates to your above criticisms (suffice to say, thanks for the feedback). I think it's not quite clear enough that the new system has been released to Dev-Branch at an early stage. The team felt that, on balance, publishing the system 'in the wild' was the best route. It's fair to say that a number of aspects (recovery conditions, rates of decay, sway duties, etc). can - and should - be improved.

 

Ultimately, we have to compare the performance of the system against our originally stated design goals. In my view, if our end goal is to create a mechanic that:

1. Encourages players to consider their loadout
2. Asks players to plan their movement
3. Rewards players that make objectively better choices
4. Prohibits players from selecting unrealistic loadouts
5. Is transparent and comprehensible for players

Then, bluntly put - in its current, fresh-out-the-oven incarnation - it fails to satisfactorily meet a number of those criteria. We must ask how it fails to meet them satisfactorily, and identify things to add, change, or remove.

 

I think the core problem with the new system is that fatigue is only generated via sprinting. Sprinting can (and should) be avoided most of the time, so gaining fatigue occurs rarely and only in short bursts (most of the time you are either safe or dead after sprinting). The fact that fatigue regenerates if the player does anything else than sprint on, tactical pace or look trough the sights further reduces the need to plan. Because of that the new system does not achieve points 1 to 4.

To solve this problem fatigue would need to be generated by all the other exhausting activities and conditions (i.e. gonig prone, standing up, running uphills) to various degrees, modified by encumbrance...

 

...wich basicly would end up like/close to the old system with an added visual indicator. And that's probably why some people (including me) are so fussed about this change. The old system was not broken. It just was not transparent and comprehensible enough for a lot of people, and therefor failed point 5 (and in subsequence point 1 to 4 for affected players) on the list above.

[BlackAlpha 10]

How about providing a visual indication of the implications of the load carried directly on the inventory screen? Players conditioned to games aren't easily able to extend the real world implications of weight carried, terrain slope, stance, etc to in game fatigue/stamina.

When a new player sees the load bar on the inventory screen at half full, they assume they can carry twice as much as they currently do without implication, as in most games.

Maybe use colours for the bar? Or have notches on the bar indicating light, normal, heavy, overloaded states? Or a hare/tortoise icon? etc,etc.

 

True. On top of that, players need a better visual indicator that explains to them how much fatigued they are exactly - ie. a stamina bar like ShackTac Stamina Bar or the stamina bar on the dev branch. Then all the boxes that royaltyinexile mentioned will be ticked off.

 

Let's look at the old stamina system...

"Encourages players to consider their loadout"

If you carry to much stuff you get tired more quickly and can't run as much. So, you need to be careful with what you carry and sometimes you have to make compromises on what you can and cannot carry. -Check

"Asks players to plan their movement"

If you run all the time and/or run up hills a lot you'll get tired more quickly. This means you need to take care of where and how you move to avoid getting exhausted. -Check

"Rewards players that make objectively better choices"

If you take in account the above then you won't be tired as much and have a tactical advantage. -Check

"Prohibits players from selecting unrealistic loadouts"

If you carry too many things you get tired more quickly. So, you are encouraged not to carry unrealistic loadouts. -Check

"Is transparent and comprehensible for players"

Implement better feedback in the inventory screen and add a stamina bar (which is something mods already do!) -Semi-check

 

Now, let's take a look at the new stamina system...

 

"Encourages players to consider their loadout"

Does it? Sprinting isn't that more faster in this game. As long as you don't max out the weight you don't get punished much. So, you can carry anything you want and not get punished for it if you don't care about the sprint key.

"Asks players to plan their movement"

You can run anywhere as much as you want. Just don't hold down that sprint key for too long and you'll be fine. But that hardly requires planning.

"Rewards players that make objectively better choices"

As said above, sprinting isn't that big of a deal in Arma. So in the new system you ask yourself: Do I want to run a tiny bit faster or do I want to carry that MG/launcher/super body armor and a bunch of other items instead? I'd go for the latter. The new system encourages you to ignore fatigue because fatigue in the new system is a non-issue - it almost doesn't exist and you don't need to worry about it.

 

"Prohibits players from selecting unrealistic loadouts"

With the new system you can carry an unrealistic loadout and still be able to move and fight effectively quite easily, much more so than with the old stamina system. The new system encourages unrealistic loadouts.

 

"Is transparent and comprehensible for players"

The stamina bar certainly helps there and clearly shows to the player the action/reaction of what they are doing. -Check

 

The new stamina system gets one check mark out of five, while the old system gets four - it even gets five if you use mods. It seems to me that the old stamina system is much better.

 

 

EDIT:

The new stamina system has one advantage not mentioned above - it's more accessible. The old system is less accessible. Is it worth it switching to this new inferior system and removing the old, superior system altogether just to make the game more accessible? Surely, there must be a better answer! Why can there not be both? For instance, this could be an option in the difficulty settings, similar to what BIS already does, where they give people the choice between an arcade and a more realistic experience.

[machineabuse 11]

-snip-

Appreciate you taking the time to post royaltyinexile. This new system is very frustrating for a lot of us especially because it breaks some use cases.

The biggest gripe from some of our TrackIR users is that we can't regain stamina while the weapon is brought up to aim. Many of us keep the weapon up in aim while in overwatch positions while using TrackIR to do our looking around. The benefit to this is we always know exactly where the muzzle is pointing. The current system penalizes us doing this for bounding movements as we progressively lose stamina simply by bringing our weapons up to cover our team mates whether we want to shoot or not.

Also lying prone with the weapon deployed and looking down the sight prevents stamina recovery. Why? This brings back the horribly frustrating situation that many new ArmA players have when they first start playing with the default controls before they realize they can split hold breath into a different binding from zooming, which are infuriatingly chorded together in the default controls. 

[-Coulum- 35]

Just wanted to share a quick note about this one. Part of the motivation for adding more feedback to engaging targets relates to some of the inherent limitations we face. During the Apex pre-production phase, we asked ourselves if it would be feasible to create a more advanced system, where successfully engaged target could, for example, be knocked down...

-snip-

...While I don't think it's pandering to a 'casual audience' to reach that conclusion, I also recognise it's not up to players to care about the constraints of our animation technology. We'll take that hit (*cloud of blood spawns*). I could go on about everything else happening under the hood when a target is struck (recently added dynamic aiming error, etc), but this topic is about fatigue feedback, and I've derailed things for quite long enough. :)

Hi RiE. The only reason I brought it up was because of the combination of:

• New stamina system, which closely mimicks any generic FPS's sprint bar
• The statement "These changes alone will give you the opportunity to spot if you a hit target better", which sounds like you guys just wanted hit indicators, also a standard in any generic FPS

It makes it seem as though the latest "core mechanics refinement", aside from ppe, is geared strictly towards making arma more like a COD, Battlefied etc. Thats what I was drawing attention to when I pointed out the new hit fx. Personally I don't mind them. But the motivation for them concerned me. After your explanation, not so much. But honestly my overall faith is not restored until the stamina system is changed. Alot.

 

Ultimately, we have to compare the performance of the system against our originally stated design goals. In my view, if our end goal is to create a mechanic that:

• Encourages players to consider their loadout
• Asks players to plan their movement
• Rewards players that make objectively better choices
• Prohibits players from selecting unrealistic loadouts
• Is transparent and comprehensible for players

Then, bluntly put - in its current, fresh-out-the-oven incarnation - it fails to satisfactorily meet a number of those criteria. We must ask how it fails to meet them satisfactorily, and identify things to add, change, or remove.

 

Lastly, and it's Sunday, and it's late, so bear with me, I want to offer some sort of note of hope: although next week is going to be long and stressful and in large parts smothered in rage, we have some truly dedicated designers that will be doing little else than listening to feedback, making plans, and implementing improvements.

Well, like many have pointed out, it seemed like the fatigue system, plus the new stamina bar would have worked perfectly to achieve bullet points one through five. That is where the worry stems from. Why would the devs completely replace the old system, with a totally new, extremely simplified one, if the old system was already meeting the goals they themselves set? The conclusion one might come to is that their  real goal was to simplify/dumb it down all along. Maybe I am ignorant of stamina's potential. But for the most part I saw little wrong with the fatigue system, and even less so that couldn't be fixed with some tweaking, all pointed out in this thread, rather than a complete revamp.

 

I am glad to hear stamina is in a plastic state. I apologize for any premature, unfairly harsh criticism. It sounded to me like the system had been extensively tested and tweaked. I was unaware it had much room for developing. For now my feedback is pretty simple. It should be more like fatigue. There is not much more to add at this point. Its all already been said in this 74 page thread.

 

You're good with words RiE and I feel more hopeful regarding this issue. But right now the new mechanic doesn't match up. I understand it will take time. But it is the end result of stamina that really speaks for the team's goals.

As always thanks for your acknowledgement and detailed explanations. I am glad there are devs like you to calm us crazy armaholics down  :)

[doveman 7]

I share the disappointment with the new system that others have already expressed, so no need to repeat it.

 

Hopefully the devs will keep the old fatigue system, as an option at least, for those of us who want to play A3 as a mil-sim. If it's an option we must be able to force it on with a server setting for MP, no way should authors be expected to edit all their missions to toggle on the old system.

 

I do have a suggestion that I think is in-line with the expressed design goals and would add a further tactical element. I understand that IRL soldiers often drop their backpacks before assaulting the enemy, so that they can move faster and more freely. This is somewhat impractical in A3 though (certainly I've never done it) as you'd probably never be able to find your backpack again, particularly if you're with your squad and you all drop your backpacks together. IRL you'd probably be able to quite easily identify your backpack from the others but in A3 it's not really possible to tell which was yours, in fact it's much harder to spot a backpack at all against the terrain than it would be IRL. So how about an on-screen marker, whether permanently displayed whenever you drop your backpack, or that only appears when pressing a key, that displays on your backpack when you're within sight of it? You'd still need to remember roughly where you left it but wouldn't have the unrealistic difficulty of spotting it or distinguishing your own from everyone else's and so people are more likely to drop them before assaulting, other than perhaps medics and AT soldiers who need to carry extra supplies/ammo and aren't expected to move up until the rest of the squad has cleared the way and so don't need to move as fast. 

[rübe 127]

Why would the devs completely replace the old system, with a totally new, extremely simplified one, if the old system was already meeting the goals they themselves set? The conclusion one might come to is that their  real goal was to simplify/dumb it down all along.

Right? There has to be some other reason that hasn't been mentioned yet. Why else would you scratch fatigue, an overall lovely system, completely? It just doesn't add up, especially if you also consider the (limited) resources BIS is willing/able to put into A3. This decision is simply not comprehensible. And hence I'm not only upset about the introduction of stamina in favour of fatigue, I'm also slightly worried about the communication from BIS in this regard. RiE reiterating those (original) five design goals doesn't help at all. Fatigue was (almost) there. Stamina is not even close.

 

Yet, I don't think this comes really down to actively dumbing down things for the masses (the interface might be a better place to start here...). Instead I still suspect the AI is more of a problem here than actual people. Unfortunatly BIS doesn't seem to be willing to put too much effort into AI (MP sells copies of the game, SP probably not so much...), fatigue screwed them over, so better put in something more AI-friendly... No fatigue for jogging while not respecting the actual loadout or terrain or anything...? So AI can easily move from A to B as a group, despite different loadouts/capabilities? Perfect!

 

...can't really think of anything else that would lead to this decision. <_<

 

:mellow:

 

I understand that IRL soldiers often drop their backpacks before assaulting the enemy, so that they can move faster and more freely.

If you do this with your AI squad you will have all guys shouting "out of ammo" at you. :lol:

I know, because I made them do this, while waiting for the rest of the team in case of fatigue/out of formation... At least AI has no problem locating/picking up their backpack once all guys are rested good enough again. :P

[martin_lee 33]

Thanks royaltyinexile for sharing. I would be looking forward to try out the improvements on the stamina system.  :)

 

Having tried some scenarios with different loadout, I found that when it comes to firefights, it is actually not too bad even at this stage. The thing is that in combat pace and aiming, there is no recovery. In a firefight  you would 'sprint' from cover to cover, aiming and firing at enemy, and perhaps use combat pace to go around tight corners, you hardly recover any stamina. You pretty much had to go through the fight with however much stamina you have. I would have much less stamina being a machine gunner or AT soldier than a regular rifleman. I think this would, at least, discourage machine gunner and AT soldier to be at the very forefront of an assault force clearing a town.

 

There are still many things to work on, seems you guys would be having a very busy week or two. Work hard and I am looking forward to see and try them out.  :P

[tpw 2315]

With a little bit of code wrangling it's actually possible to emulate some of the previous fatigue system's functionality (except the animation speed changes unfortunately). Here's some code I've been trialling today which over-rides the very limited new stamina system for any units on the map. Depending on whether BIS are determined keep the current system as is, and I sincerely hope they don't, I may incorporate this code into TPW MODS.

 

If not prone, fatigue increases for any speeds above walking (not just sprinting).

If prone, fatigue increases for any speed above zero

Fatigue increases at a greater rate depending on load

Fatigue increases and decreases at a greatest rate for prone, then crouch, then standing 

Swimming and climbing greatly increase fatigue

Fatigue is converted to the appropriate stamina setting 

You'll see the stamina bar now far more often. It might jerk a bit as the script over-rides the default behaviour.

 

/*

TPW FATIGUE

Simulates old style fatigue - but not the animation speed changes 

Fatigue (stamina) will increment/decrement more quickly dependent on unit speed, stance and load 

Fatigue can change even when looking through sights 

*/

 

tpw_fatigue_fnc_calc = 

{

private ["_unit","_st","_ld","_vel","_inc","_ftg","_thr","_mlt"];

_unit = _this select 0;

_ftg = _unit getvariable["tpw_fatigue",0]; // Fatigue value (0-1)

_thr = 8; // Speed threshold above which fatigue increases (stance dependent). Below this fatigue will decrease

_mlt = 1; // Fatigue multiplier (stance dependent)

_inc = 0; // Fatigue change increment (speed, stance and load dependent)

 

// Only bother if unit in vehicle

if (vehicle _unit == _unit) then

{

_st = stance _unit;

_ld = load _unit;

_vel = speed _unit;

 

// Determine stance dependent velocity threshold and fatigue multiplier

switch _st do

{

case "PRONE": 

{

_thr = 1;

_mlt = 10;

};

case "CROUCH": 

{

_thr = 4;

_mlt = 2;

};

case "STAND": 

{

_thr = 8;

_mlt = 1;

};

case "UNDEFINED": // swimming, ladders etc

{

_thr = 1;

_mlt = 10;

};

default

{

_thr = 8;

_mlt = 1;

};

};

 

// Calculate how much to increment/decrement fatigue

_inc = (_vel - _thr ) * _mlt * (1 + _ld) / 1000; 

_ftg = _ftg + _inc; 

 

// Fatigue limits

if (_ftg < 0) then

{

_ftg = 0;

};

if (_ftg > 1) then

{

_ftg = 1;

};

 

//hint format ["Vel: %1 Inc: %2% Fat: %3%",_vel,_inc * 100,_ftg * 100];

 

// Convert fatigue to % stamina and apply to unit

_unit setvariable["tpw_fatigue",_ftg];

_unit setstamina ((1 - _ftg) * (60 * (1 - _ld)));

};

};

 

// Main loop

while {true} do

{

{

[_x] call tpw_fatigue_fnc_calc;

} foreach allunits;

sleep 1;

};